Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Insaniak has the right of it, imo... been lurking this thread and this honestly seems pretty clear from a pure RAW standpoint.

It will definitely mishap.

 insaniak wrote:

Because the Drop Pod's Inertial Guidance rule specifically kicks in if the Drop Pod would mishap.

No, when it lands on impassable terrain/enemy models. It does not say when it would mishap.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Because the Drop Pod's Inertial Guidance rule specifically kicks in if the Drop Pod would mishap.

No, when it lands on impassable terrain/enemy models. It does not say when it would mishap.

Inertial Guidance kicks in when the Pod scatters. Not when it lands.

 insaniak wrote:

 Laughingcarp wrote:
Right, but by the argument you're supporting VS skimmers being able to drift 1" away, the drop pod model bounces off the enemy unit and is placed within 1". It CAN physically be placed there.

No, it can't, because the rules say it's not allowed to be there.

But if you read that the drop pod gets to shuffle the full 1" away, why can't the skimmer?

Because the Drop Pod's Inertial Guidance rule specifically kicks in if the Drop Pod would mishap.

The skimmer rule just applies when the skimmer finishes its movement. At the time you check if it mishaps, it hasn't yet finished its movement.

I think it occurs before or at the same time. If before it works if at the same time you get to pick. When I get home I'll post the actual rules.

From the SM codex:

"Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle. Note that if a Drop Pod scatters off the edge of the board, it suffers a Deep Strike Mishap as per the Warhammer 40,000 rule book."

Okay so people can actually start arguing here are the rules verbatim.

Skimmers :

MOVING SKIMMERS
Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either.
Skimmers can move over all terrain, ignoring all penalties for difficult terrain and Dangerous Terrain tests . However, if a moving Skimmer starts or ends its move in difficult or dangerous terrain, it must take a Dangerous Terrain test. A Skimmer can even end its move over impassable terrain if it is possible to actually place the model on top of it, but if it does so it must take a Dangerous Terrain test.
If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it.



And the actual rules for Mishap and Deep strike verbatim

Arriving by Deep Strike
Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves and then deploy them as follows:
• • First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model’s final position. If a vehicle scatters when arriving via Deep Strike, do not change its facing – it must continue to face the same direction as it did before you rolled for scatter.
• • Next, the unit’s remaining models are arranged around the first one. Models must be placed in base contact with the first model and begin to form a circle around it. When the first circle is complete, a further concentric circle must be placed with each model touching the circle inside it. Each circle must include as many models as will fit.
• • Models deploying via Deep Strike treat all difficult terrain as dangerous terrain.
In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a Deep Striking Transport vehicle if they are in one.

The actual mishap rules

Deep Strike Mishaps
Deep Striking onto a crowded battlefield can be dangerous, as one may miss the intended objective or even materialise inside solid rock! If any of the models in a Deep Striking unit cannot be deployed, because at least one model would land partially or fully off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong. The controlling player must roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table and apply the results. If the unfortunate unit is also a Transport, the Deep Strike Mishap result applies to both the unit and anything embarked within it.


I've underlined the parts that I feel relevant, Deep strike is forcing it to end it's movement over a model, there for it's skimmer rule kicks in. In fact I don't think you can name another situation in the entire game where something can force it to end it's move on top of another model. If so please quote specifically the circumstance and rule.

Again please Name a situation where a skimmer could be forced to move other than deep strike and that very specific instance

It's convenient that you're choosing to believe that Skimmer rules trump Deep Strike rules, and not the other way around.

The model arrives, it's movement is done, the skimmer rules attempt to move it but then the deep strike rules prevent that movement. End result: Mishap.

Is a skimmer "forced to move" in DS? The scatter is not movement. DS is movement, but the player chooses to DS. The player chooses to DS into a position in which a potential scatter would cause a mishap. Does that qualify for "forced to move"? Also, is it correct to assume that the must apply to something considering it was in at least one prior edition exactly as stated? GW has left obsolete rules in before. The've also included rules with an eye towards what might be included in the future.

Also, does "minimum distance so that no models are left underneath" mean that it includes the 1" buffer for enemy models in the mishap rules?

 solkan wrote:
It's convenient that you're choosing to believe that Skimmer rules trump Deep Strike rules, and not the other way around.

The model arrives, it's movement is done, the skimmer rules attempt to move it but then the deep strike rules prevent that movement. End result: Mishap.

Name one other situation with rules quotations that allows the forcible movement of a skimmer. Deep Strike in of itself is movement, it would in fact cause it to end it's movement on top of a model if it scattered, this would still be a true statement even if Deep Strike did not have the the Mishap rule.

Deep Strike would be forcing the Skimmer to end it's move.

Hollismason wrote:


Again please Name a situation where a skimmer could be forced to move other than deep strike and that very specific instance

Thunderblitz table on ram result of of 6 pg 95 "Flipped: The vehicle being rammed scatters D6" and then suffers an Explodes! result from the Vehicle Damage table." The vehicle is forced to move by scatter D6" and then after it scatters it explodes.
Tank shock is another not-normal movement that can force the skimmer to move.

Yeah neither of those are examples.

The first one is literally " This blows up" , it's not ending a move it scatters and then is removed from the board.

The 2nd one is not even .. I don't even. That's not what tank shock does to vehicles.

You get one more try and then the devil gets your soul.

Hollismason wrote:
Deep strike is forcing it to end it's movement over a model,...

Except that it hasn't finished its movement until you resolve the mishap.

In fact I don't think you can name another situation in the entire game where something can force it to end it's move on top of another model.

And once again, why would this be relevant?

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Deep strike is forcing it to end it's movement over a model,...

Except that it hasn't finished its movement until you resolve the mishap.

In fact I don't think you can name another situation in the entire game where something can force it to end it's move on top of another model.

And once again, why would this be relevant?

Ignore Deep Strike just follow the progression of the skimmer rule. Do not bring up deep strike, let's pretend there is something else in effect.

This is the order that you think a skimmer rule applies. and this is why it's important for another example.

1. Something forcibly moves the skimmer to being over another model.

2. You physically place the model on top of the other model. Ending your move.

3. You then move the skimmer back after your movement has ended.


Are you saying it works this way? If not show me the way that it works step by step for another force not even Deep Strike just anything at all.

This is how it actually works.

1. Something forcibly moves the skimmer , this movement would end it's move on top of another..

2. Since it would move it on top of another model and force this, the skimmer rules prevent this.

3. Skimmer rules kick in and disallow that.

This is how the actual rule functions.

You do not "end your move" then move the model back, it never goes there to begin with.

This is the same function as saying Deep Strike will force it to end it's move on top of another model. You don't get there to begin with so you never Mishap because the skimmer rule absolutely does not allow you to put the model in a situation where it would be placed on top of another for any reason.

Hollismason wrote:
This is the order that you think a skimmer rule applies. and this is why it's important for another example.

1. Something forcibly moves the skimmer to being over another model.

2. You physically place the model on top of the other model. Ending your move.

3. You then move the skimmer back after your movement has ended.

Whether or not you physically place the model there, yes, that would be how it would work.

This is the same function as saying Deep Strike will force it to end it's move on top of another model. You don't get there to begin with so you never Mishap because the skimmer rule absolutely does not allow you to put the model in a situation where it would be placed on top of another for any reason.

This would be true if the rule read "If a Skimmer would be forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it."

It doesn't. You have to complete the skimmer's movement before the rule kicks in.

Hollis - again you ignore the very important "First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model’s final position"

Youre wrong. Again. You keep quoting rules, but not reading them, even when pointed to the exact part of the rule that proves your position to be wrong.

SCatter is not movement. The unit hasnt yet arrived, as the model used is simply a marker to represent the unit.

So, the mdoel representing the unit scatters. It is in a position that would trigger mishap. It mishaps. If it didnt mishap, then the rest of the unit arrives, and you again ensure no mishap. If you pass ALL OF THIS successfully, THEN you have arrived by deesptrike, anD AT THAT POINT you count as having mvoed.

NOt before

Not at ANY TIME before.

Meaning you mishap. Stop posting irrelevancies, and ignoring the actual rules pointed out to you 14 times now: the model is only a marker until after you check for mishap. It has to be, otherwise in a multi model unit you would be claiming, hilariously, that the unit is both on the table and not, in 2 parts. Oh, and if scatter were movement, NOONE COULD SCATTER-MISHAP, EVER. The movement rules prohibit any form of scattered mishap currently available (1", off board)

You have been proven incorrect at every turn. Maybe step back and realise you havent spotted something new?

Hollismason wrote:
Mishap doesn't happen before the end of the move. You physically go to place the model that's during it. You place it check if it's going to mishap. It's being forced to end its move , Skimmer kicks in.

RAW and RAI, I am like 100% sure this is why there was not thought given to giving Raiders and the like anything to manage deep strike with.

Except it's not being forced to end it's move over that unit - the Deep Strike (it's move) isn't finished.
Are you arguing that the scatter alone is it's move? The burden is on you to prove that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Hollis - again you ignore the very important "First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model’s final position"

Youre wrong. Again. You keep quoting rules, but not reading them, even when pointed to the exact part of the rule that proves your position to be wrong.

SCatter is not movement. The unit hasnt yet arrived, as the model used is simply a marker to represent the unit.

So, the mdoel representing the unit scatters. It is in a position that would trigger mishap. It mishaps. If it didnt mishap, then the rest of the unit arrives, and you again ensure no mishap. If you pass ALL OF THIS successfully, THEN you have arrived by deesptrike, anD AT THAT POINT you count as having mvoed.

NOt before

Not at ANY TIME before.

Meaning you mishap. Stop posting irrelevancies, and ignoring the actual rules pointed out to you 14 times now: the model is only a marker until after you check for mishap. It has to be, otherwise in a multi model unit you would be claiming, hilariously, that the unit is both on the table and not, in 2 parts. Oh, and if scatter were movement, NOONE COULD SCATTER-MISHAP, EVER. The movement rules prohibit any form of scattered mishap currently available (1", off board)

You have been proven incorrect at every turn. Maybe step back and realise you havent spotted something new?

100% agree. There doesn't seem to be any rules backup to show that scatter is movement. Scatter is just a method for determining the final position versus a chosen position. I don't have the rulebook in front of me right now, but I thought the wording about counting as movement had something about the shooting phase? Maybe someone can check that for me? I thought it said something like "counts as having moved in the preceding movement phase." Regardless of the wording, the only reason to say that something counts as having moved is if it didn't move but you want other rules (such as shooting) to think it did.

you mishap.

even if you were allowed to move the skimmer the minimum distance so no models are left underneath it, that minimum distance would still be within 1" which would be a mishap, but scattering isn't movement so thats still not a issue.

regardless the result is mishap.

Playing devil's advocate for a sec.

Is it not still the case that if there are two effects or things that are stated to occur at the same time, then the person who's turn it is decides what order to resolve those?

Waaaaghmaster wrote:
Playing devil's advocate for a sec.

Is it not still the case that if there are two effects or things that are stated to occur at the same time, then the person who's turn it is decides what order to resolve those?

It is but irrelevant since the mishap trigger occurs before the skimmer rule trigger.

Zimko wrote:

Waaaaghmaster wrote:
Playing devil's advocate for a sec.

Is it not still the case that if there are two effects or things that are stated to occur at the same time, then the person who's turn it is decides what order to resolve those?

It is but irrelevant since the mishap trigger occurs before the skimmer rule trigger.

I'm not entirely convinced of that. The deepstrike mishap only occurs if there are any models in the deepstriking unit that can not be placed because either (1) off the table (2) they would have to be placed in impassable terrain (3) they would be closer than 1" of a enemy model (4) friendly models in the way.

You don't check for the mishap until the final position of the deepstriking unit is resolved (aka..scatter and then start placing other models in concentric circles around it the first model).

In the case of a deepstriking skimmer, the final position of the skimmer is not determined until after the skimmer rule is taken into account..then you would check for a mishap.

I think what it really comes down to here is whether or not the "move the skimmer the shortest distance so no models are underneath it" includes the 1" buffer for enemy models.

Waaaaghmaster wrote:

Zimko wrote:

Waaaaghmaster wrote:
Playing devil's advocate for a sec.

Is it not still the case that if there are two effects or things that are stated to occur at the same time, then the person who's turn it is decides what order to resolve those?

It is but irrelevant since the mishap trigger occurs before the skimmer rule trigger.

I'm not entirely convinced of that. The deepstrike mishap only occurs if there are any models in the deepstriking unit that can not be placed because either (1) off the table (2) they would have to be placed in impassable terrain (3) they would be closer than 1" of a enemy model (4) friendly models in the way.

You don't check for the mishap until the final position of the deepstriking unit is resolved (aka..scatter and then start placing other models in concentric circles around it the first model).

In the case of a deepstriking skimmer, the final position of the skimmer is not determined until after the skimmer rule is taken into account..then you would check for a mishap.

The skimmer rule doesn't take into effect until after the skimmer finishes moving. It hasn't finished moving until after it finishes resolving the 'Deep Strike' rule. Part of the 'Deep Strike' rule is the 'Mishap' rule. So 'Mishap' triggers before the skimmer finishes moving and therefore before the skimmer rule triggers.

I know it's hard to believe, but the skimmer rule is a nearly useless rule. It's an artifact from previous editions where it was possible to force a vehicle to move or pivot (such as the Eldar's Eldritch Storm). They left it in there because there's no harm in leaving it since it doesn't effect other rules.

This is exactly my point, it definitively states that the scatter is the FINAL position. No one is claiming the scatter is movement. No one has stated that stop arguing this strawman.

What is stated is that you place the model on the board, then roll to determine it's final position and it cannot move further. That final position would land it on top of models, skimmer kicks in

That's forcing it to end it's move, Final is END, therefore my point is it never get's there to begin with.

2nd

You do not physically place models on top of other models. This is what the Skimmer rule specifically and irrevocably prevents skimmers from doing.

That's the whole point of the rule.

Now please name me another situation where a Skimmer can end it's move forcibly on top of another model.

Hollismason wrote:
Now please name me another situation where a Skimmer can end it's move forcibly on top of another model.

If an example of this is found, would that somehow change your stance?

It would actually be relevant because the basic rules and almost all rules in the game prevent that from happening.

You cannot just by the basic rules place a model on top of another.

There's a few specific circumstances that allow you to "count" as moving through a model.

But yeah. You can't do it.


Except people literally believe you physically place the skimmer model on top of a model, then end your move, then move it back and that's just like dumb.

Correct.

So what's the problem? Are you finding it difficult to believe that GW copy and pasted a rule thru 3 editions that currently has no in-game purpose?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
and that's just like dumb.

Indeed, but that's how it works.

Zimko wrote:
Correct.

So what's the problem? Are you finding it difficult to believe that GW copy and pasted a rule thru 3 editions that currently has no in-game purpose?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
and that's just like dumb.

Indeed, but that's how it works.

First, the idea of GW copy and pasting a rule through 3 editions without realizing they did so, is an assumption. And as an assumption, it is no more, or less, valid than assuming it is there intentionally. So that is a specious argument at best.

The fact of the matter is, it is in the rules, and must be considered (regardless of personal opinion regarding it's purpose)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have to agree with Hollis (at least in principle). The rules for skimmers says that they cannot end their movement over other models (friendly or enemy). It's pretty definitive, and nowhere does it say "except when deepstriking, skimmers cannot end their movement over other models".

it really comes down to whether or not the movement of the skimmer so that no models are underneath it includes the 1" boundary for enemy models.

If it does not, then the skimmer would end up less than 1" away..thus it would mishap anyways.

If it does, then there would be no mishap.

Waaaaghmaster wrote:

Zimko wrote:
Correct.

So what's the problem? Are you finding it difficult to believe that GW copy and pasted a rule thru 3 editions that currently has no in-game purpose?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
and that's just like dumb.

Indeed, but that's how it works.

First, the idea of GW copy and pasting a rule through 3 editions without realizing they did so, is an assumption. And as an assumption, it is no more, or less, valid than assuming it is there intentionally. So that is a specious argument at best.

The fact of the matter is, it is in the rules, and must be considered (regardless of personal opinion regarding it's purpose)

Fair enough. But assuming that in order for a rule to exist then it must have a current in-game purpose in relation to the other rules is also an assumption and should not be used as a factor.

So finding an example of where the skimmer rule would be triggered is not relevant to the discussion. Deep Striking itself is not a movement. The vehicle is treated as having moved after it finishes arriving, but before that happens it must Mishap.

Zimko wrote:

Waaaaghmaster wrote:

Zimko wrote:
Correct.

So what's the problem? Are you finding it difficult to believe that GW copy and pasted a rule thru 3 editions that currently has no in-game purpose?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
and that's just like dumb.

Indeed, but that's how it works.

First, the idea of GW copy and pasting a rule through 3 editions without realizing they did so, is an assumption. And as an assumption, it is no more, or less, valid than assuming it is there intentionally. So that is a specious argument at best.

The fact of the matter is, it is in the rules, and must be considered (regardless of personal opinion regarding it's purpose)

Fair enough. But assuming that in order for a rule to exist then it must have a current in-game purpose in relation to the other rules is also an assumption and should not be used as a factor.

So finding an example of where the skimmer rule would be triggered is not relevant to the discussion. Deep Striking itself is not a movement. The vehicle is treated as having moved after it finishes arriving, but before that happens it must Mishap.

That's the thing though. Where in the rules does it state that deepstrike is not movement? There are references in the rules to units moving onto the board from reserves, and it clearly states that deepstriking vehicles count as having moved. So, for the purposes of subsequent rules interactions, the vehicle is treated as moving.